|
Post by ICPS-bob on Apr 14, 2007 0:20:18 GMT
Michael, I agree that the composition names are a much better way to describe the parentage. However, since each complex crossing requires many separate breedings, I would hope the parentage would be separated by appropriate sequential placement of multiple parentheses, so that
S. flava x (S. flava x S. psittacina) x (S. oreophila x S. psittacina) x (S. rubra x S. purpurea) x (S. oreophila x S. minor)
becomes
S. flava x ((S. flava x S. psittacina) x ((S. oreophila x S. psittacina) x ((S. rubra x S. purpurea) x (S. oreophila x S. minor))))
Realizing, of course, that the appearance of the offspring of this genealogy will likely look quite different from one another. If a particular offspring has particularly desirable traits, then that specific plant can be selected and described as a cultivar and cloned. The complex parentage name still provides valuable information about how that special plant was developed.
All such naming assumes that each of the original parents were "pure" species (whatever that means) and were not themselves a complex hybrid that had been "contaminated" somewhere in their ancestry.
|
|